The opinion of the court was delivered by: Paul A. Magnuson United States District Court Judge
This matter is before the Court on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. For the reasons that follow, the Motion is granted in part and denied in part.
On the morning of April 4, 2005, in Virginia, Minnesota, two St. Louis County deputy sheriffs pulled over a car driven by Plaintiff Robert Yernatich, who had a suspended drivers' license. While the deputies were approaching the vehicle, they saw Yernatich put something in his mouth. They suspected that he was ingesting a controlled substance and tried to get him to spit it out. He refused. They then transported him to the hospital, where a mouth swipe revealed the presence of a controlled substance.
Because of fears that Yernatich might overdose on whatever substance he ingested, the deputies sought and obtained a search warrant for a blood test. According to Defendants, the hospital required a urine test before it would release Yernatich to the custody of the deputies, but Yernatich refused to participate. Thus, again according to Defendants, the hospital catheterized Yernatich. Yernatich's version of the story is different: he contends that the deputies ordered him to urinate in a cup and, when he refused, ordered hospital staff to insert a catheter into Yernatich's penis and held him down as the nurse complied with their order. Yernatich also contends that he requested an attorney multiple times but was never allowed to contact an attorney, that the deputies sprayed him with pepper spray and otherwise physically mistreated him, and that he suffered injuries as a result.
For purposes of a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), the Court takes all facts alleged in the complaint as true. See Westcott v. Omaha, 901 F.2d 1486, 1488 (8th Cir. 1990). The Court must construe the factual allegations in the complaint and reasonable inferences arising from the complaint favorably to the plaintiff and will grant a motion to dismiss only if "it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts which would entitle him to relief." Morton v. Becker, 793 F.2d 185, 187 (8th Cir. 1986) (citations omitted). The complaint must include "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007).
Yernatich objects to the Court considering the public record of the underlying criminal case against Yernatich, contending the Twombly line of Supreme Court cases foreclosed the consideration of matters outside the pleadings. But this fundamentally misapprehends both the "public records and matters necessarily embraced by the complaint" exception to the usual rule that the Court considers only the Complaint in evaluating a motion to dismiss, see Porous Media Corp. v. Pall Corp., 186 F.3d 1077, 1079 (8th Cir. 1999), and what the Supreme Court decided in Twombly and its progeny. If necessary, the Court may consider matters of public record when evaluating a motion to dismiss. Yernatich's contentions to the contrary are without merit.
Count I of Yernatich's Complaint claims that Defendants, acting under color of state law, violated Yernatich's constitutional rights in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Count II alleges that St. Louis County violated § 1983 by failing to appropriately discipline, train, or otherwise supervise its deputy sheriffs. Count III claims that there was a conspiracy among Defendants to violate Yernatich's civil rights in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1985. Count IV claims that the deputies were negligent in their treatment of Yernatich. Count V raises a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress, and Count VI contends that the County is liable for negligent supervision, training, and retention. Count VII alleges that the County is responsible for the actions of the deputies under the doctrine of respondeat superior. Yernatich claims damages of more than $50,000, and seeks a declaration "mandating a change in policy and procedures in St. Louis County which insures an appropriate system of hiring, retention, supervision and discipline for acts of misconduct," among other relief. (Compl. at 12-13.)
Defendants argue that Yernatich has failed to make out a claim for a violation of his constitutional rights and that, even if such a claim can be construed from the allegations in the Complaint, the deputies are entitled to qualified immunity. But the Complaint sufficiently alleges that the deputies violated Yernatich's constitutional rights, and the rights alleged were clearly established: the right to have an attorney, the right not to be subjected to unreasonable searches and seizures, and so forth. At this early stage of the ...